Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) plans to offer an amendment this week protecting gun rights on land controlled by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Currently, guns are prohibited on Corps land, even when gun possession is otherwise allowed by state law. Rep. Gosar’s legislation would simply remove federal restrictions and allow for the law of the states (in which such land is located) to govern firearms possession.

The Gosar amendment, modeled after the Recreational Lands Self-Defense Act (H.R. 1865) introduced by pro-gun Rep. Bob Gibbs (R-OH), is similar to a 2009 law repealing the gun ban on National Park Service land. Army Corps of Engineers land was not part of that bill, something the Corps was quick to point out after that law took affect.

The Corps said, in a statement: “Public Law 111-024 does not apply to Corps projects or facilities . . . [and the Army Corps] will continue to prohibit loaded concealed weapons on Corps properties regardless of the new law and notwithstanding any contrary provisions of state law.”

The amendment will reverse the Corps’ decision and remedy the “oversight” of the lands bill.

“The Recreational Lands Self-Defense Act is a bipartisan effort that seeks to correct this oversight and restore Second Amendment rights to law-abiding citizens while they are legally camping, hunting, and fishing on the 11.7 million acres of Army Corps recreational property,” Rep. Gibbs said.

Rep. Gosar notes that “this amendment will restore continuity to federal lands and ensure that constitutional rights are consistently protected.”

Nationally, the Army Corps of Engineers controls 400 lake and river projects, 90,000 campsites and 4,000 miles of trails. A vote on the Gosar amendment could come as early as Thursday.

ACTION: Please contact your Representative and urge him or her to vote YES on the Gosar amendment.

GOD'S WORD FOR TODAY
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. - John I 3:8 (KJV)

IN THE NEWS

OBAMA NATION

Congress wants automatic wage deductions to pay down the debt - Pathetic Attempt Please Do Not Fall For Thishttp://bit.ly/q3VZ0x

Celebrate Independence Day with a Real BangWhile helping preserve our gun rights for the next generation.

“Be a real American Warrior for gun rights and freedom. Join GOA and sign up as many members as you can.” — Ted Nugent

- Independence Day is now less than a month away, and Americans will soon be celebrating in grand style. Many will spend hundreds of dollars on fireworks — even driving hours away to buy “legal” fireworks from out-of-state.

Others will use the holiday to take their children plinking — exercising their time-honored right to keep and bear arms.

Well, Gun Owners would like to encourage you in these pursuits and remind you that one of the greatest gifts you can give your children is the continued freedom to own your firearms. And you can help preserve these rights by getting others to join GOA, the organization that one Congressman deemed “the pit bull of the Second Amendment.”

The $20 fee is a bargain, as you will be signing people up as members in the hardest-hitting gun lobby in Washington, DC, for about the cost of a box of ammo.

For about $1.50 a month, you will help further the gun rights organization — that in the past six months alone — has:

Spearheaded the effort to get the U.S. Constitution read on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives — for the first time in history;

Led the fight amongst gun organizations to repeal anti-gun ObamaCare;

Helped stave off an assault on the Senate filibuster, which has since been used (just recently) to defeat a radical, anti-gun judicial nomination;

Worked to pass constitutional “permitless” carry in Wyoming and improve open carry in Florida; and,

Appeared on hundreds upon hundreds of media outlets (radio, TV and print).

You know that when it comes to elections, GOA has led the way in getting “freedom fighters” sent to Congress. For example, we were the only gun organization in Washington that backed Rand Paul for Senate. And, boy, are we glad we did, as he has already established himself as a champion for gun rights!

We also worked single-handedly (amongst national gun groups) to challenge Harry Reid, and we came within a whisker of defeating him in last year’s elections. Our opposition to him was recently justified (again) after he worked to defeat Senator Rand Paul’s “no gun registration” amendment which he offered to the PATRIOT Act. GOA helped Paul draft this amendment to keep the ATF from registering 4473’s (the form all purchasers fill out when they buy a firearm from a licensed dealer).

Also, in November of 2010, GOA was the ONLY national gun organization working to defeat Nancy Pelosi’s “Blue Dog” Democrats who were compromising your gun rights away. Our efforts were well worth it as we helped defeat over 30 Blue Dogs and reduced Pelosi to a minority status.

GOA does not compromise on Capitol Hill; and we do not compromise when it comes to getting good representation in the Congress.

So why not give your pro-gun family and friends a gift membership in Gun Owners of America? This would be a great gift for Independence Day or for someone’s birthday or anniversary.

You’ll be increasing the voice of the most active grassroots gun lobby that is constantly on the front lines defending your rights.

The more activists who, like you, send their e-mails and postcards to their legislators … the louder your voice becomes in the halls of Congress.

About: Gun Owners of America (GOA) is a non-profit lobbying organization formed in 1975 to preserve and defend the Second Amendment rights of gun owners. GOA sees firearms ownership as a freedom issue. `The only no comprise gun lobby in Washington’ – Ron Paul

Your chance to comment on a Department of Homeland Security plan to tap into state drivers’ license databases and create a new national ID system expires next week. It’s the groundwork for a cardless national ID, which threatens liberty even more than card-based schemes like REAL ID.

The E-Verify program’s move to merge federal background checks and state driver license data sets the stage for satisfying all three elements of a national ID. (Two years ago, I discussed what constitutes a national ID in some detail.) E-Verify has not satisfied these criteria up to now, but the pieces are coming together quickly.

First, it is national. That is, it is intended to be used throughout the country, and to be nationally uniform in its key elements. If its proponents have their way, E-Verify will indeed soon go national, a requirement on every employer to vet new workers past the federal government’s databases.

Second, its use is either practically or legally required. This is a judgment call, but in two diferent ways, E-Verify appears to meet this element. First, not having data in the E-Verify databases means not having legal work, so “participation” in E-Verify can be fairly called practically required. Second, try to opt out of the system and you will meet a dead end. The program includes no opportunity I know of to refuse participation. It’s legally required if the state or federal governments have got your identity data.

I could be wrong, of course. Interested researchers should try contacting their state motor vehicle bureaus (cc: your state legislators) and ask not to have data about you transferred to the federal government for E-Verify. Please let me know what you learn.

The final “element” of a national ID is that it is used for identification. Up to now, E-Verify has largely worked by comparing identifiers. (I.e., Does this name match this Social Security number?) The current plan is to tap into state databases for more identifiers: name, date of birth, driver’s license/permit number, and so on. From there, it’s a short ride to gathering drivers’ license photos and biometric descriptors. (E-Verify already uses federally acquired photos in its “Photo Screening Tool.&#8221 With the inclusion of your driver’s license photo, the E-Verify system will be able to display your picture on the screen of anyone who looks you up, allowing for positive identification.

This is a national identification system. If every employer has to use E-Verify—or even every major employer—it will become the all-purpose security device, used for cashing checks, confirming the name on credit cards, and looking you up at the prescription counter. Of course, it will be used at airport checkpoints. You’ll be screened through E-Verify at entrances to government buildings—maybe private buildings, too. And why not for random, “instant” checks at the subway or bus station?

Just remember: If you have a tax dispute with the government, the Department of Homeland Security might flag you in the database—or it might de-identify you entirely—until you get right with the government.

Because it’s a database system, you won’t be able to argue your case like you can in the familiar card environment. With a card, at least, you can say, “No, look. This is me. This is my ID card. This is my picture. Give me my prescription.” With E-Verify, the answer will be, “Sorry, you have to talk to DHS or Social Security.” For good reason, I named my paper on electronic employment eligibility verification, “Franz Kafka’s Solution to Illegal Immigration.”

Arguments for the E-Verify system sounding in practicality and common sense do not hold up, but there are also principled reasons to oppose having a government background check system. Using E-Verify, the Department of Homeland Security is rapidly assembling a national ID system that can be converted to boundless uses. In addition to controlling employment, E-Verify can be put to use in regulating access to health care and housing, in gun control and registration, in monitoring travel and lodging—the list goes on and on.

I went through the arguments against having a national identification system in my book, Identity Crisis. In brief, a national ID would strip us of privacy even faster than is already happening, producing formal dossiers and increased surveillance. A national ID would transfer power en masse from individuals to governments. They would administer our rights by controlling the tools we need to navigate a “papers, please” society. A national ID would also be insecure, as it centralizes and homogenizes information assets (identity data) that are more secure if widely dispersed and heterogeneous.

As I noted last week, the federal government cannot and will not implement the REAL ID Act. So it’s on a new tack: E-Verify will soon be the new national ID.

The University of Kentucky has fired a graduate student and former anesthesia technician, Michael Mitchell, for keeping a gun in his car a mile away from the university hospital where he was employed.

The university then proceeded to try to deny Mitchell unemployment compensation by claiming, unsuccessfully, that he was fired for misconduct. A hearing officer found against the University of Kentucky and in favor of Mitchell.

All this, despite the fact that Mitchell had a Kentucky concealed carry permit, believed he had fully complied with Kentucky law governing concealed carry, and therefore cooperated fully with police and university authorities.

And finally, Kentucky Revised Statutes sec. 27.020 seems to prevent a state institution like the University of Kentucky from interfering with the Second Amendment rights of a concealed carry permit holder. That section holds, in part, that “[n]o person or organization, public or private, shall prohibit” a concealed carry permit holder from transporting a firearm in his vehicle in accordance with law.

So....... What’s up with the University of Kentucky?

The answer is that it’s probably not much different from many Left-leaning universities. After all, Virginia Tech fought hard and successfully to keep guns off its campus – nearly a year, to the day, before a crazed gunman killed 31 people on that campus.

Mitchell appealed a ruling from Fayette Circuit Court Judge Pamela Goodwine, who dismissed his suit against the University of Kentucky because its anti-gun animus “was not a violation of public policy.”

Judge Goodwine claims to have read U.S. Supreme Court language concerning “exceptions” to the Second Amendment. This language is called “dictum” and is non-binding.

But Goodwine seems to have missed the point of the Supreme Court’s decision in Heller: Americans have a constitutional right to use firearms to defend themselves.

Kentucky concealed carry permit holders aren’t a problem in America. Rather, the problem is liberal anti-gun institutions who want to disarm their students and employees -– at the same time that they are adamantly incompetent in their efforts to protect persons on their property.

Mitchell appealed directly to the Kentucky Supreme Court, which voted 5-2 to hear his appeal. A win in this lawsuit will end the illegal and discriminatory practice on the university.

ACTION: Our friends at Kentucky Coalition to Carry Concealed (KC3) have set up a fund for Michael Mitchell’s legal defense. Please visit https://www.kc3.com/donation.php to contribute to this important cause. Any contribution, however small, to this effort to fight on behalf of the Second Amendment would be appreciated.

GOD'S WORD FOR TODAY
For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end. Jeremiah 29:11(KJV)

IN THE NEWS

LET THEM EAT CAKE

Royalty attend party at Buckingham Palace while the Middletons hold a bash for friends at nearby hotel LET THEM EAT CAKEhttp://bit.ly/lEvs2w
OBAMA NATION

Back in 2008 we reported on air with Phillp Berg a Democrat who was sued Obama and the DNC to force Obama to prove his citizenship.

Obama spent over a million dollars to defend not showing the birth certificate. So why the flip flop? Back when this started people were called birthers because they wanted the truth. The birthers included the entire spectrum of political parties.

Now that Donald Trump Steps up several years later and the media started paying attention to many of the facts, that Obama releases a long form birth certificate. Of course, I am sure the likes of Phillip Berg and others will no doubt examine it closely to check for authenticity and I am almost certain that this will be the cause for additional lawsuits.

Either way, why now? Why spend over one million dollars to not show the certificate and then suddenly when he has the worst poll numbers of any president?

Perhaps, the lawsuit that Mr Berg filed; had it been heard by the Supreme Court would have resulted in the truth about Barrack Hussain Obama. You can learn more about him at www.obamacrimes.com

The Truth will come out eventually, it always does. however, I wonder if Obama has been to Arizona lately???

GOD'S WORD FOR TODAY!
And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. Luke 4:4 (KJV)

IN THE NEWSOBAMA NATION
China become world's top superpower as US argue Obama's birth certificatehttp://on.wsj.com/jt0zta